"Columns that touch on the pandemic and its repercussions and aftermath attract far fewer readers than most of the rest of what I write." I would add that that holds true with all public health reporting. That at least has been my experience in the city I cover, where public health (from needle exchanges to infant mortality to diabetes to community primary care reorganizations) has been an important news story for the decades I've been here. Not sure what the simple answer is beyond 1) Working harder to craft stories that show why it's important, emphasizing human beings while avoiding provider jargon; and 2) Feeling OK about having fewer page views while writing about something that matters.
Excellent article. There is another challenge (perhaps a deeper problem) related to the science underpinning public health interventions. There is a consistent pattern to underinvest in research that would shed light and understanding on the emergence, spread, and eventual management and decline of epidemic and pandemic disease. When a disease emerges, funds are allocated to “fight” the disease, and then as soon as the disease recedes, the funding disappears. The inability to get ahead of the curve, to better understand the ecological underpinnings of disease and why diseases spill over, dooms us to a reactive, rather than a proactive, response.
I'm so glad you brought this up. I've long been amazed that the healthcare system in the United States hasn't gotten the intense coverage it needs. We have one of the most expensive (if not the most expensive) healthcare systems in the Western world, with some of the worst outcomes.
And, that boom and bust, the bust, may have been one factor in costing Harris the election. Biden cutting off the COVID aid pipeline so quickly and totally made inflation feel even worse.
Also: Public health includes public mental health.
"Columns that touch on the pandemic and its repercussions and aftermath attract far fewer readers than most of the rest of what I write." I would add that that holds true with all public health reporting. That at least has been my experience in the city I cover, where public health (from needle exchanges to infant mortality to diabetes to community primary care reorganizations) has been an important news story for the decades I've been here. Not sure what the simple answer is beyond 1) Working harder to craft stories that show why it's important, emphasizing human beings while avoiding provider jargon; and 2) Feeling OK about having fewer page views while writing about something that matters.
Excellent article. There is another challenge (perhaps a deeper problem) related to the science underpinning public health interventions. There is a consistent pattern to underinvest in research that would shed light and understanding on the emergence, spread, and eventual management and decline of epidemic and pandemic disease. When a disease emerges, funds are allocated to “fight” the disease, and then as soon as the disease recedes, the funding disappears. The inability to get ahead of the curve, to better understand the ecological underpinnings of disease and why diseases spill over, dooms us to a reactive, rather than a proactive, response.
I'm so glad you brought this up. I've long been amazed that the healthcare system in the United States hasn't gotten the intense coverage it needs. We have one of the most expensive (if not the most expensive) healthcare systems in the Western world, with some of the worst outcomes.
Readers who want more facts about the Bobby Kennedy aspect of the important challenge Dick raises can click here: https://www.newsguardrealitycheck.com/p/introducing-the-rfk-jr-healthcare
Steve Brill
Thanks for this wake-up call!
And, that boom and bust, the bust, may have been one factor in costing Harris the election. Biden cutting off the COVID aid pipeline so quickly and totally made inflation feel even worse.
Also: Public health includes public mental health.